coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Ankara.
5.  On 17 May 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. The same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor, who reported that there was no sign of ill-treatment on his body. On 18 May 2000 he was questioned in police custody in the absence of a lawyer. In his police statement, the applicant admitted that he had had military training in Iran but rejected the allegation that he was a member of an illegal organisation.
6.  On 21 May 2000 the applicant was again medically examined by a doctor, who stated that there were no traces of ill-treatment on his body. Subsequently, on the same day, the applicant was brought before the prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Ankara State Security Court, still in the absence of a lawyer. Before the public prosecutor, the applicant declared that he had been subjected to “psychological torture” in police custody and refuted his police statement. He acknowledged that he had been to Iran but denied having had military training there. The applicant also gave a statement to the investigating judge. He retracted his police statement but did not mention any allegations of ill-treatment or duress. After the questioning was over, the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody.
7.  On 11 July 2000 the prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, charging the applicant with the offence of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Tevhid-Selam and its sub-group the Kudüs Savaşçıları. A number of other persons were also included in the same indictment and accused of various offences, such as the assassination of a number of prominent journalists and academics in Turkey. According to the prosecutor, the organisation's aim was to establish a religious regime in Turkey similar to that in Iran.
8.  On 7 January 2002 the Ankara State Security Court rendered its 152 page-long judgment. The trial court found it established, on the basis of the applicant's police custody statement of 18 May 2000, that he was a member of the illegal organisation. It sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment under Article 168 of the Criminal Code. In its decision the trial court also examined the applicant's allegation of psychological pressure in police custody. Having regard to the two medical reports drawn up at the time of the applicant's arrest and his release from police custody, which stated that there were no marks of injury on the applicant's body, the court concluded that the applicant had retracted his police custody statement in order to avoid conviction.
9.  On 12 November 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant's conviction. The applicant was released from prison on 10 June 2006.
4.  The applicants were born in 1926, 1959, 1951, 1962, 1963 and 1966 respectively and live in Gaziantep.
5.  In 1999 the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources expropriated five plots of land belonging to the applicants (plots nos. 501, 561, 562, 606 and 608) in the Aşağıçardak village in Nizip for the construction of the Birecik Dam.
6.  Following the applicants' requests for increased compensation, the Nizip Civil Court of First Instance awarded them additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate. The applicants appealed and the Court of Cassation upheld the judgments of the first instance court.
7.  In November and December 2002 the administration made partial payments to the applicants in additional compensation. On 31 May 2007 the Ministry made further payments to discharge their outstanding debts. The details regarding the proceedings and payments are indicated in the table below:
 
PLOT No.
DATE OF JUDGMENT OF THE NİZİP CIVIL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
DATE OF FINAL DECISION BY THE COURT OF CASSATION
AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
(interests and legal costs not included)
(in Turkish liras (TRL))
AMOUNT OF FIRST PAYMENT (made in November and December 2002)
(in TRL)
AMOUNT OF SECOND PAYMENT (made on 31 May 2007)
(in Turkish liras (TRY[1]))
501
3.  The applicant, who was born in 1985 and lives in İzmir, was a student at a military academy. When he registered with the academy, the applicant and his father had signed a promissory note for the reimbursement of the applicant's educational expenses in the event of his leaving the school, due to expulsion or otherwise.
4.  On 7 June 2004 the applicant was expelled from the military academy following a secret security investigation conducted by the Ministry of Defence into him and his family. The applicant was not notified of the specific reasons for his expulsion.
5.  On 23 July 2004 the applicant asked the Supreme Military Administrative Court to annul the expulsion decision.
6.  On 23 August 2004 the Ministry of Defence made submissions to the Supreme Military Administrative Court, alleging that the applicant had been expelled in compliance with the relevant laws. The Ministry of Defence also supplied that court with the results of the security investigation which had led to the applicant's expulsion in support of its allegations. The applicant was not granted access to this information, as it was classified as secret, in accordance with Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602 on the Supreme Military Administrative Court.
7.  Following an examination of the classified documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence, on 15 December 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court refused to annul the expulsion decision. The court acknowledged that the security investigation conducted into the applicant and his family had revealed that his father had previously been convicted of forgery. It further held that this information justified the applicant's expulsion under the relevant laws and regulations.
8.  On 18 January 2005 the applicant requested rectification of that judgment, which the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected on 16 February 2005.
9.  The Ministry of Defence subsequently filed an action with the İzmir Civil Court against the applicant for the reimbursement of his educational expenses. On 14 April 2008 the İzmir Civil Court ordered the applicant to pay the Ministry of Defence 12,355.61 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 6,000 euros (EUR)), plus interest running from 7 June 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in İzmir.
5.  On 7 June 1997 the applicant passed an exam for the post of a private security guard and was subsequently employed to work for Etibank, a State-owned company. However, the exam results were subsequently annulled on the basis of a report prepared by inspectors who had found a number of wrongdoings in the conduct of the examination. The applicant's contract of employment was terminated.
6.  On 27 November 1997 the applicant brought an action before the 7th Chamber of the Ankara Administrative Court, challenging the annulment of the exam results. He also asked to be reassigned to his post. The Ankara Administrative Court decided on 9 December 1997 that it had no jurisdiction to examine the case and forwarded the case file to the Konya Administrative Court.
7.  On 5 March 1998 the Konya court decided that it also did not have jurisdiction to examine the case and sent the file to the Supreme Administrative Court which decided, on 15 June 1998, that the Ankara Administrative Court had jurisdiction.
8.  On 14 April 1999 the 7th Chamber of the Ankara Administrative Court decided in favour of the applicant and he was reinstated in his previous post. The court found that the annulment of the exam should not have affected the successful candidates who, by having met the necessary criteria, had passed the exam properly. The bank appealed against the decision on 28 June 1999.
9.  On 15 November 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision. The court found that the report drawn up by the inspectors contained sufficient reasons for the annulment of the exam. The Supreme Administrative Court attached weight to the gravity of the wrongdoings pointed out in that report and concluded that the employment of personnel through such an exam would not be fair. On 26 June 2002 the applicant was dismissed from his job once more.
10.  On 18 September 2002 the 7th Chamber of the Ankara Administrative Court followed the Supreme Administrative Court's decision and rejected the applicant's request. On 3 December 2002 the applicant appealed.
11.  On 29 December 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of 18 September 2002. The final decision was communicated to the applicant on 10 May 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  On 18 December 1997 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant arrears in child benefits in the amount of 1,062 Russian roubles (RUB). The judgment was not appealed against and became final. It was not enforced.
6.  On 13 December 2000 upon request of the authorities the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgment by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It based its decision on the ground that another defendant authority should have also been a party to the proceedings.
7.  On 4 April 2001 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh in case no. 2-3638/01 awarded the applicant RUB 2,914.49 as arrears in child benefits. There was no appeal.
8.  According to the Government, the applicant had been present at the hearing on 4 April 2001. They submitted a copy of the relevant record of proceedings. The record contains information that the applicant was present at the hearing and supported her claims. The record is signed by the judge who tried the case and by the clerk.
9.  According to the applicant, she was not present at the hearings on that date. She provided the Court with a copy of a page from the case-file on which the parties put their signatures attesting the receipt of the court's judgments. The applicant submits that she was not present at the hearings as she did not receive the judgments of 4 April 2001.
10.  The judgment of 4 April 2001 is not enforced to date.
11.  On 12 February 1999 the Kominternovskiy District Court awarded the applicant for arrears in child benefits RUB 3,607. The judgment was not enforced.
12.  On 13 December 2000 upon request of the authorities the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgment by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It based its decision on the ground that the defendant was not present at the hearing and was not duly informed about it.
13.  On 4 April 2001 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh in case no. 2-4195/01 awarded the applicant RUB 7,408.63 of arrears in child benefits. The judgment was not appealed against.
14.  The Government, like in respect of the previous case, asserted that the applicant had been present at the hearing and submitted a copy of the record of proceedings signed by a judge and a clerk.
15.  The applicant maintained that she had not been present.
16.  The judgment 4 April 2001 was enforced on 13 December 2005.
17.  On 24 March 2000 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant RUB 493.28 in child benefits. The judgment was not appealed against.
18.  It was enforced only on 13 December 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Gevgelija.
5. On an unspecified date in 1996, the applicant brought a civil action against Mr D. (“the debtor”) claiming restoration of the outstanding debt related to a loan that she had given to him in 1995.
6. On 29 April 1998 they reached a court settlement (судско порамнување, “the court settlement”) under which the debtor was required to pay the outstanding debt in equal monthly instalments.
7. On 19 January 1999 the Gevgelija Court of First Instance (“the first- instance court”) granted the applicant's request of 11 January 1999 ordering enforcement of the court settlement, less DM 300 which the debtor had meanwhile paid. The applicant proposed an inventory, valuation and public sale of movable and immovable property of the debtor. On 17 May 2000 she further specified her request as concerning a house and plot of land (“the property”). In this connection, she submitted an extract from the land registry (“the registry”) dated 21 October 1999 attesting the debtor's title to the property. She also requested the first-instance court to record a charging order over the property (да стави прибелешка врз имотот на должникот) so as to secure her claim.
8. On 15 June 2000 the first-instance court ordered valuation of the property. It was carried out on 10 October 2000. The first-instance court's decision in this respect dated 22 March 2001. It was served on the debtor on 28 November 2006.
9. Between 28 November 2006 and 17 April 2007, the first-instance court ordered four adjournments because of the debtor's absence.
10. By submissions of 25 April 2007 and 5 June 2007 respectively, the applicant informed the first-instance court that the debtor had transferred the property to his father's possession on the basis of a court decision of 14 March 2001. She requested the first-instance court to continue with the enforcement since the debtor had regained possession of the property after his father died.
11. No further actions were taken for enforcement of the applicant's claim.
4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Košice.
5.  On 3 April 2001 the applicant filed an action with the Košice II District Court. He claimed that the defendants had lost the right to use a flat.
6.  The first hearing in the case was held on 21 September 2004.
7.  On 23 September 2004, on the applicant's complaint, the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of the above proceedings. It noted that the case was not complex. The applicant's conduct had partially contributed to their duration at the initial stage in that he had not paid the court fees at the time of filing the action. The District Court was responsible for delays totalling twenty-five months. The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant 20,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) (the equivalent of 500 euros (EUR) at that time) as just satisfaction. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's legal costs and to proceed with the case speedily.
8.  On 12 April 2005 the District Court found against the applicant.
9.  The Košice Regional Court, on appeal, quashed the judgment on 16 November 2005 and remitted the case to the District Court.
10.  The District Court asked the defendants and the applicant to submit information and invited several doctors to indicate whether the defendants' state of health would allow them to attend a hearing. A hearing was held in November 2006 at which the applicant requested a modification of his action. His request was subsequently rejected.
11.  The District Court found against the applicant on 27 February 2007.
12.  On 15 October 2007 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. After having been served on the parties to the proceedings, the decision became final on 29 November 2007.
6.  The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Bartosinski, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Lubianka.
7.  By a decision of the Bydgoszcz District Court of 14 September 2002 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of illegal production and sale of alcohol, selling cigarettes without payment of excise duty and membership of an organised criminal group. According to the applicant's submissions, police officers used force against him during his arrest and insulted him. When ordering his detention, the court found that the evidence obtained in the case, in particular the testimonies of the other suspects and of a witness, bills, minutes of searches and telephone conversations, indicated a high probability that the applicant had committed the offences. The applicant's detention was therefore necessary in order to prevent collusion and to avert the risk that he would exert pressure on witnesses or that the suspects would coordinate their testimonies.
8.  During the investigation the applicant's detention was successively prolonged by detention orders issued by the Inowrocław District Court or the Gdańsk Court of Appeal and dated 11 December 2002, 11 March and 27 August 2003.
9.  The applicant submits that the decision of 11 December 2002 was served on him on 16 December 2002 and that for 4 days he had been kept in custody without having been provided with a relevant detention order.
10.  In his letter of 3 April 2003 the Bydgoszcz Regional Prosecutor admitted that the service of the applicant's motion for release had been delayed for 5 days before reaching the Prosecutor Office.
11.  In further letters, the Regional Prosecutor stated among other things that the applicant's correspondence with the prosecutor had not been delayed by the Prosecutor Office. On 15 May 2003, following the applicant's complaint to the Ombudsman about delays in the service of official letters, the President of the Inowrocław District Court clarified that the applicant's letter to the Regional Prosecutor of 27 January 2003 had been forwarded to the prosecutor on 14 February 2003 and that a letter dated 13 February had been served on the applicant on 28 February 2003.
12.  The applicant submitted an envelope containing a letter from the Court, bearing several stamps of the Police Detention Centre dated 8 and 16 March 2004 including a stamp “censored” (“ocenzurowano”) with an illegible date.
13.  By a decision of 14 August 2003 the Bydgoszcz Regional Prosecutor granted the applicant permission to receive a visit from members of his family in the presence of an officer of the Central Investigation Office. The prosecutor stated that the applicant had previously been granted two visits, on 28 February and 10 June 2003, and that neither the family nor the applicant had requested more frequent meetings. On 29 September 2003 the Regional Prosecutor replied to the applicant that further visits had not been granted since no requests for such had been made.
14.  On 29 March 2004 the applicant was released from detention. The proceedings are pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in İzmir.
5.  On 8 October 2001, the applicant was taken into police custody in İzmir on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party). During his police custody, the applicant signed a form explaining arrested persons' rights, whereby he was reminded of his right to remain silent. On 9 October 2001 the police officers interrogated the applicant at the Anti-Terrorism department of the Izmir Security Directorate, in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant admitted that he had aided and abetted the PKK and acted as courier for the organisation. Another accused, N.S. was also arrested in the course of the operation. In his police statement, N.S. stated that he was a member of the PKK and that he had stayed at the applicant's house when he had come to Izmir and maintained that the applicant had acted as a PKK courier and helped him in certain illegal activities.
6.  On 12 October 2001 the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor and he denied that he had been involved in the PKK. He also claimed that he had signed his police statement without reading it.
7.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the investigating judge, who questioned him and sixteen other suspects in relation to their involvement in the PKK. The applicant's lawyer was also present during the questioning. In his statement to the investigating judge, the applicant denied all the charges against him. After the interrogation, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on the order of the judge.
8.  In an indictment dated 19 October 2001, the Public Prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court charged the applicant and fifteen others with aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. The charges were brought under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713 (the anti-terrorist law).
9.  During the trial, the applicant denied any connection with the PKK. Furthermore N.S., one of the co-defendants, admitted to being a PKK member before the court, but stated that although he had stayed at the applicant's house when he had come to Izmir, the applicant did not know that he was a PKK member. In this connection, N.S. rejected his police statement, alleging that it had been taken under duress. On 20 June 2002 the Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years and nine months' imprisonment. In convicting the applicant, the Izmir State Security Court relied on the applicant's police statement, which had been taken in the absence of a lawyer. The court further took into consideration the police statement of N.S. who had given evidence that the applicant had been involved in the activities of the PKK. It therefore concluded that the applicant's police statement, in which he had admitted to his involvement in the PKK, had been confirmed by other evidence in the case file.
10.  On 10 October 2003 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Kocaeli.
5.  On 10 October 2001 the applicant was arrested in Istanbul on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. On 14 October 2001 the applicant was allowed to see her lawyer for a short period of time (five minutes) following the permission given by the public prosecutor.
6.  On 14 October 2001 the applicant's statement was taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer. In her statement, the applicant accepted the charges against her and gave a detailed account of her connections in the illegal organisation. Subsequently, on 16 October 2001 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor, and thereafter before the investigating judge of the Istanbul State Security Court. Before the public prosecutor, the applicant admitted that she was a member of the illegal organisation. When questioned by the investigating judge, the applicant denied the charges against her. After the interrogation, the investigating judge ordered that the applicant be detained on remand.
7.  On 23 November 2001 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing the applicant of being a member of an illegal armed organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
8.  On 4 March 2004, based on her police statement and other evidence before it, the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced her to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. On 11 November 2004 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant's appeal.
9.  On 7 October 2005 the applicant was released from prison.
3.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Switzerland.
4.  On 26 September 2001 the public prosecutor at the Erzurum State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the Erzurum State Security Court against the applicant on the charge of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way), for certain offences allegedly committed in 1981 or before.
5.  On 15 August 2003 the Erzurum State Security Court issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction (görevsizlik kararı), pursuant to provisional Article 1 of Law no. 2845, which limited the jurisdiction of State Security Courts to offences committed after 1 May 1984. The case was thus referred to the Sivas Assize Court.
6.  On 11 November 2004 the Second Chamber of the Sivas Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against him. The applicant did not attend any of the hearings before the Sivas Assize Court as he lived in Switzerland at the material time.
7.  On 19 November 2004 the judgment of 11 November 2004 became final since it was not appealed by the parties.